Assorted odd questions

[Anonymous]

Hello again. I've come up with more questions to ask. Any help you could give would be most appreciated. Here are my questions:

1.) Under what circumstances do the train brake line have to be connected and the brake system charged? Is it the number of cars, the manner or operation, or what?

2.) Could someone please give me an overview of how oil is burned in a steam locomotive?

I would be grateful for any help you could give.

Most gratefully and sincerely yours,
Daniel Parks

[jchnhtfd]

Somebody will give you the answer to No. 1 -- I'd say pretty much if you've got to move 'em, you've got to hook 'em up and get air to them... with very very few exceptions. Regardless of how many or how far.
On No. 2 -- the oil is injected using a nozzle or nozzles near the back of the fire box, along with both main combustion air (which makes a rich, but combustible, mixture near the nozzles and also gives a great deal of swirl to the mix, to make it uniform) and overfire air (which leans the mixture out to burn completely and properly). There are a variety of ways to light the thing off, but once it's lit, it will stay lit unless someone turns off the oil. The whole assembly looks rather like your familiar oil burner in the basement, only on steroids... one might add that if it does go out (a problem which plagued the cab-forwards on the SP) it may, and probably will, relight when the mix gets right again, provided it does so fairly quickly -- and may do so with quite a bang.

[Overmod]

Be advised that most American oil-fired steamers used steam pressure, rather than high-pressure mechanical pumps, to inject and atomize the oil correctly (and to heat it to an injectable consistency -- much of the oil burned in steam locomotives was substantially solid at 'room temperature'!) Part of the reason to incorporate 'permanent' rich regions in the primary combustion region of the flame plume is to aid in relighting -- you can consult the general principle of 'rich torches' to see how this aids flexibility in operation.

There were some fairly sophisticated burner designs toward the end of American 'big steam', some of which are not well known. There are some modern designs using mechanical injection -- one, in India, actually using a diesel genset to power the injection pump and an air compressor (!!!)

The oil has an extended burn travel through the firebox and chamber -- however, if it is not completely combusted by the time it gets to the rear tubeplate, it will 'quench' to form soot and sticky deposits there. These have to be periodically 'sandblasted' out while the locomotive is running -- coincidentally producing a magnificent 'smoke show'. There's usually a small pail or container of sand, and a scoop, provided in the cab for this purpose -- the operation is called 'sanding the flues.'

There are people reading these forums who are experts in oil firing, and you may consult them for additional details.

[Anonymous]

If you are switching (not on the main), you can always bleed off the cars and not have to charge them to move them. Most yards that I have worked in are switched in this manner. It is a must when humping. Just my 2 cents........

[dehusman]

Whenever you will be moving more than a mile or so over the main track you generally need to cut in the air. Whenever the engine brakes cannot safely control the movement of the cars you would cut in the trainline. Most of the time cars are moved without air it is while switching and in yards.

Dave H.

[CShaveRR]

Yes, indeed--the better question would be, when is the air not required. You want to have the hoses made and the air cut in all the time, unless you anticipate having cars traveling under their own momentum in your operation. We also don't make all of the hoses when we're pulling cars out of the classification "bowl"--a few are made to help with braking, but the rest of the hoses aren't "made" (connected) until the car department is inspecting the cars for an outbound train.

[Kozzie]

Daniel, I also have wondered about oil burning steam locos.

Something I've thought about too, is the pros and cons of using oil instead of coal.
Coal seems to be more widely used, but that may be because of it's availability, or perhaps lower cost for a given railroad.....hmmm

Maybe some of the more experienced Forum Folk might have a couple of thoughts on that too....

Dave

[Modelcar]

....If the oil was "stubstantially solid at room tempurature", ....how did they manage to get it out of the tender and up to the injectors....Or was there steam heating coils in the tender...?

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....If the oil was "stubstantially solid at room tempurature", ....how did they manage to get it out of the tender and up to the injectors....Or was there steam heating coils in the tender...?

Yes, steam heating coils in the tender. The UP Gas Turbines, too, had steam generators just for that purpose, since they too burned oil not that far removed from asphalt.

Peter

[Modelcar]

....Boy, it's hard to imagine now how oil was cheaper than coal at certain circumsances.

[rrnut282]

Mark
Just curious. How much cheaper? It must have been fairly significant, because they would also have to heat the storage tanks in the engine servicing area, right? Not to mention the additional costs to maintain a steam line into the tender.

[Anonymous]

Dear jchnhtfd, overmod, ironken, Dave H., CShaveRR, Dave, Mr. Hemphill, ModelCar, Peter, and rrnut282,
Thank you very much for your help. I am very grateful. I have one more question: If the steam is used to atomize the oil, then wouldn't the steam put out the fire, or at least make it burn more coolly?

Most sincerely and gratefully yours,
Daniel Parks

[rrnut282]

I figured it had to do with money or percieved convenience, (I know they didn't change to make it easier on their firemen[;)]) but seeing some of the actual costs laid out makes the concept easier. I don't follow the SP much so the fact that they converted a mainline operation from coal near a coalfield to oil speaks volumes.

I liked the tidbit about the Pennsy. Just when I'm really admiring them, I find out something that makes me scratch my head.[%-)]

As an aside: If California has its own oil and has access to cheaply transported imported oil, why do they pay some of the highest prices in the country for gasoline? Do their 'feel good' taxes increase the price that much?

[Modelcar]

...Isn't it for the fact California has such restrictions on emisions from autos it requires special gasoline blends, additives, etc...making it higher in cost.

And yes Mark, I take your point of less cost of moving oil....but don't forget in {other}, cases, coal can be moved by pipe line...Slurry.

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....Boy, it's hard to imagine now how oil was cheaper than coal at certain circumsances.

u
Well, here's how it went: Back in the day, people discovered oil and said, hey, we got this black stuff, let's figure out how to use it. It was abundant and it was cheap. Sure, people used gasoline and kerosene, and a little bit was even used to heat houses, but the rest was basically waste -- so basically, the "cheap oil" that was used by railroads was akin to a DeLorean using garbage for nuclear fusion. [swg]

Now, we need gas, gas, gas, to power our Sputvees at 8 gallons per mile, not to mention lube oil, plastics (also made out of oil) are everywhere -- look right in front of you, ahem -- not to mention the number of refineries is actually in decline. And most oil is now controlled by an organization that purposely controls supply and demand! [8]

-Mark
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[Overmod]

With respect to steam for atomizing oil:

In the quantity used (and at the temperature delivered) the atomizing steam has little effect on the flame. In fact, a number of modern boilers use injected steam to improve firing performance (e.g., by reducing peak flame temperature to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) -- the water in the steam serves as an energy carrier, transferring the absorbed heat quite efficiently to the boiler surfaces a bit further along, and there is, if anything, higher rather than lower overall steam-generating performance. (This is true all the way up to a proportion of about 27% of water in the fuel, btw!)

Naturally, the steam does not participate in fuel combustion, so additional arrangements for primary and secondary air need to be made (in addition for what's required with compressed-air fuel injection) and a different calculation for mass of the combustion products is needed from that used for mechanical fuel injection (pumping or slinging). But that's technical stuff... hey, you can wake up now...

[Modelcar]

....And economies such as China are now increasingly causing demand on oil to a degree probably demand is higher than supply....and elevating the price as well.
Mark...I hope railroads continue to find a way to be competitive with slurry pipe line Co's.....as it seems they have generally so far.

[Anonymous]

re: china's taste for oil/scrap/coal etc.
china can not pay any more than the raw material is worth for any prolonged period of time. if the finished goods and services fail to find buyers at prices which create a fair return on input costs, then the the demand for the inputs will wither. effecient pricing of the finished goods and services will necessarily need to save the world's consumers at least as much money as the increase in china's accererated usage of oil/scrap/coal inputs is otherwise costing the consumer.
there will be ups and downs but in the end it will all work out. people are clever.

[Anonymous]

Dear everyone,
Thank you so very much for all of your help.

Most sincerely and gratefully yours,
Daniel Parks

[daveklepper]

Still think USA needs energy independence. Not just from OPEC.